Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1241  
Old 16th March 2017, 01:52 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,202
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

This thing about animals not being "aware" of pain is horrible. How do we know other humans are aware of pain? Because they seem to react to pain situations the same way you or I do and we assume they are having a similar internal experience to ourselves. Why would you choose to apply different criteria to other life forms when they demonstrate the same kind of pain reactions as other humans do? To treat them differently is to court being a monster.

It reminds me of this nonsense we get on face book a lot about "if we are animals why aren't we allowed to act like animals?". Its nonsense of the highest order. Here is one such: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1015...8306785640640/

and here is my response:

Quote:
Communication: a number of our animal relatives communicate in complex ways, and some can communicate with learned, rather than instinctual, methods. Humans have much more sophisticated communication ability.

Deliberation: a number of our animal relatives can work out difficult puzzles and predict consequences for actions. Again humans can do this better, probably aided by the complexity of our communication ability.

Tool Use: Many other animals use and invent tools, and can teach the use of new tools to others. However humans seem able to combine deliberation and communication abilities to extend tool use to technology design, which appears to be beyond other animals.

Social Connection: Those animals that are social (apes, cetaceans, birds etc.) tend to use their ability to deliberate and communicate to live with one another effectively. They seem to develop concepts of "fairness" and "sharing" and show distress at the loss of those they are familiar with. We would call that grief. Humans have superior communication, deliberation and tool use. This allows us to more effectively design ways to live together in larger and larger groups while maintaining harmony and sustaining ourselves physically.

We are animals. Very sophisticated ones. We have turned all those skills into a vast web of laws and economies that allow us to thrive. In doing so we have plundered the other life on the planet but now we are learning that they are almost as human as we are and, having recognised this, we take steps to help them out and reduce our impact on their lives.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
  #1242  
Old 16th March 2017, 09:02 PM
odd's Avatar
odd odd is offline
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlord.
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pianosa.
Posts: 9,060
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post

Yes, I did meant moot! Thanks.

I guess it depends on your definition of suffering. Can one suffer if one is not aware of the pain their body is experiencing?

"a good [God?] that thinks suffering and pain is a good thing is simply a cruel c**t."

Is it immoral to allow my kids to get vaccinated? Needles cause suffering. I had the power to stop the suffering?

Off topic and not relevant to God/no God discussion, just curious. My recent reading is that animals can only communicate using instrumental language, but only humans use communicate to share experiences. Studies involved applying speech therapy to chimps practically from birth with no success.
This thread is over 1200 posts long and it advances your argument not a single step. Talk about suffering.
__________________

'[They] agreed that it was neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never questioned anything.' ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

'While on the other hand, dachshunds are always out of their depth.' - Cyclist

'I'm 'a' problem, not 'the' problem.' - Wolty

'You have to be odd to be number one.' - Dr Suess
Reply With Quote
Like Soup Dragon liked this post
  #1243  
Old 17th March 2017, 12:30 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 17,319
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

ptutt wrote:-

Quote:
Possibly if receive a diagnosis that I have a mental illness and cannot determine reality. This could explain and counter my personal experience and perception of the world and God's presence.

I think primarily the basis for belief in God is within.
The capacity to believe in god[s] is in all of us. That much is true. It does not follow that god[s] exist.

Social animals [including humans] have two ways they can receive information. The first way is via the senses. The brain interprets sensory data via sight, sound, touch etc, and build up a picture about the world, or more formally, natural phenomena.

The second way is via social networks. Neither source of information is 100% reliable.

Most social animals rely on a mix of the two information sources, but they are usually NOT equally weighted. The bias is towards social information. This seems to be the most accurate system on average, because individual can be mistaken. One reason, as you correctly point out, is mental illness. But most animals in a group will be mentally normal, unless some environmental trauma occurs, such as a disaster or war. Such severe evens can unhinge the most stable minds, at least for a time.

If however, the group has got it wrong, then that is a danger. No doubt you have heard of religious cults that commit suicide, or societies so warped by ideology that they cannot recognise certain groups as fully human, for example, the Nazis in World War two regarding Jews as sub-human, and only suitable for extermination.

Over time, humans have come up with a partial fix for this eternal conundrum of how to evaluate social vs personal information. It is called science.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #1244  
Old 17th March 2017, 04:13 PM
wearestardust's Avatar
wearestardust wearestardust is offline
What me socialist?
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: not telling
Posts: 8,399
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Depends what you mean by faith. Here, people will say it is belief without evidence. However, my view of faith is that it is an extrapolation of evidence that takes you to belief, a point of practical acceptance despite uncertainty. Humans could not operate in this world without belief as nearly all (if not all) our interactions involve varying degrees of uncertainty.

I would say that the personal experience is the primary evidence for belief in God.
As well as agreeing in broad terms with Mr Black's suggestion of pith, might we focus Ptutt on this and the actual arguments for god-belief? I am intrigued, for example, by the idea that because I believe that all sorts of things exist due to my direct experience of them then therefore one can just think whatever one wants.
__________________
You have every right to be wrong, if you wish.
- Hackenslash
Reply With Quote
  #1245  
Old 17th March 2017, 06:21 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 231
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
wearestardust said View Post
As well as agreeing in broad terms with Mr Black's suggestion of pith, might we focus Ptutt on this and the actual arguments for god-belief? I am intrigued, for example, by the idea that because I believe that all sorts of things exist due to my direct experience of them then therefore one can just think whatever one wants.
I'm not sure of the implied link between:

"because I believe that all sorts of things exist due to my direct experience of them..."

And

"... then therefore one can just think whatever one wants"

Are you effectively saying that personal experience should not automatically trump other forms of evidence? I would agree with that.
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare, Blue Lightning, Strato liked this post
  #1246  
Old 17th March 2017, 06:29 PM
ptutt ptutt is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 231
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
ptutt wrote:-



The capacity to believe in god[s] is in all of us. That much is true. It does not follow that god[s] exist.

Social animals [including humans] have two ways they can receive information. The first way is via the senses. The brain interprets sensory data via sight, sound, touch etc, and build up a picture about the world, or more formally, natural phenomena.

The second way is via social networks. Neither source of information is 100% reliable.

Most social animals rely on a mix of the two information sources, but they are usually NOT equally weighted. The bias is towards social information. This seems to be the most accurate system on average, because individual can be mistaken. One reason, as you correctly point out, is mental illness. But most animals in a group will be mentally normal, unless some environmental trauma occurs, such as a disaster or war. Such severe evens can unhinge the most stable minds, at least for a time.

If however, the group has got it wrong, then that is a danger. No doubt you have heard of religious cults that commit suicide, or societies so warped by ideology that they cannot recognise certain groups as fully human, for example, the Nazis in World War two regarding Jews as sub-human, and only suitable for extermination.

Over time, humans have come up with a partial fix for this eternal conundrum of how to evaluate social vs personal information. It is called science.
Yes, based on methodological naturalism there are only 2 sources of receiving information. But if there exists the supernatural it is possible for there to be more sources.
Reply With Quote
  #1247  
Old 17th March 2017, 07:11 PM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is offline
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,025
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Yes, based on methodological naturalism there are only 2 sources of receiving information. But if there exists the supernatural it is possible for there to be more sources.
Prove the supernatural exists and you'll be halfway there.

Hint: The supernatural exists because ptutt says so is inadmissible.
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah

Last edited by Stubby; 17th March 2017 at 07:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare, Blue Lightning liked this post
  #1248  
Old 17th March 2017, 10:40 PM
Strato's Avatar
Strato Strato is online now
If only!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Bellarine, Geelong.
Posts: 4,624
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Science (and the Social Sciences/Humanities) teaches you how to think.

Religion teaches you what to think.
__________________
You have been kissing the hand of someone who is not circumcised - you are better off kissing a goat's arse.
Habib Huhsin Alathas.
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning liked this post
  #1249  
Old 18th March 2017, 04:13 AM
surreptitious57 surreptitious57 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 636
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

ptutt : single person subjective experience does not constitute evidence as there is no other means of determining its reliability. Only inter subjective
agreement which reduces or eliminates bias or something physical that can actually be examined constitute evidence. There is no such thing as other
types of evidence. So personal experience that cannot be corroborated is not it. Regardless of how true it may be or how convinced one is of its truth
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
Reply With Quote
Like The Irreverent Mr Black, DanDare liked this post
  #1250  
Old 18th March 2017, 06:03 AM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,444
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Yes, based on methodological naturalism there are only 2 sources of receiving information. But if there exists the supernatural it is possible for there to be more sources.
And if there exists a talking horse called Ed who gives me tips on the races should I go down and bet on these tips?

See the thing is we can't claim the veracity of a source of knowledge for which we have no evidence. To claim that it is supplying knowledge can only be supported if the source of knowledge is first verified. Even if we do sometimes get knowledge that matches reality from a claimed unverified source this still doesn't verify the source, it only verifies the knowledge!

Every shyster, every huckster, every spirit reader, tarot reader, fortune teller, crystal ball gazer, prophet, priest and guru relies on this simple bit of failed logic. They use information gained from a second source, whether a guess, pre-prepared google search, cold reading, planted people or a myriad other methods employed down the ages to convince others they have a secret source of mystical knowledge.

You of course have convinced yourself that your belief is evidence of an external source when it's really all in your head! You have basically fooled yourself into thinking your belief is evidence of god, when all it is really is evidence that you believe in god, and not that god exists.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Like hackenslash, DanDare liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 07:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.